| Author | |
Maryan
Forum All-Star
Joined: Jan 02 2007
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 3145
|
| Posted: April 02 2008 at 8:52am | IP Logged
|
 |
|
Not sure where to put this but...
A question (well actually two, but I'll start with this one):
Car seats. I have a Dodge Caravans (so does SuzanneG!) that has over 200,000 miles on it. Last summer VA passed a law that all kids under age 8 (or the weight and height limit) have to be in car seats. I've always tried to be compliant with the law - however, without spending a lot of money to buy new skinny carseats, I can't fit five carseats in my car. I would have to buy a new car that cost more and uses more gas. Not possible right now at all. So my 6 1/2 year old uses a lap buckle. I'm of the understanding that I'm breaking a civil law and can be penalized a fine (give to Caesar what is Caesar's)... but not breaking one of God's laws.
Does anyone have reference books to back up my "understanding" or an explanation of civil vs. natural law...
__________________
Maryan
Mom to 6 boys & 1 girl: JP('01), B ('03), M('05), L('06), Ph ('08), M ('10), James born 5/1/12
A Lee in the Woudes
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
Lisbet
Forum All-Star
Joined: Feb 07 2006
Location: Michigan
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2706
|
| Posted: April 02 2008 at 8:57am | IP Logged
|
|
|
Good question Maryan. I am fearful of Ohio passing a similiar law, even with my 15 passenger, we'd have 7 children in carseats!  Caesar expects waaayyyy too much!
__________________
Lisa, wife to Tony,
Mama to:
Nick, 17
Abby, 15
Gabe, 13
Isaac, 11
Mary, 10
Sam, 9
Henry, 7
Molly, 6
Mark, 5
Greta, 3
Cecilia born 10.29.10
Josephine born 6.11.12
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
Maryan
Forum All-Star
Joined: Jan 02 2007
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 3145
|
| Posted: April 02 2008 at 9:02am | IP Logged
|
|
|
 My mother thinks it's a conspiracy against big families...
...which if that were true that would clearly be an offense against the common good and the civil law would be negated by the natural law.
But.. my postpartum brain is still foggy and I'm forgetting all my moral theology classes.
__________________
Maryan
Mom to 6 boys & 1 girl: JP('01), B ('03), M('05), L('06), Ph ('08), M ('10), James born 5/1/12
A Lee in the Woudes
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
SusanJ
Forum All-Star
Joined: May 25 2007
Location: New Jersey
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1347
|
| Posted: April 02 2008 at 9:19am | IP Logged
|
|
|
This is a favorite topic of my husband's. I wonder what he would say about car seat laws. I'll ask him later. We follow the speed limit exactly except in a very few select areas of the country where this is really, truly dangerous. But we also buy raw milk which, in our area, is of questionable legality. Dh does not believe that the laws against raw milk sales are valid so even though we are (maybe) breaking a civil law we aren't sinning in this case. Car seats are a gray area, though. The state should have an interest in protecting children but I know we can all come up with examples of the state going too far, or not far enough, in that thinking.
Susan
__________________
Mom to Joseph-8, Margaret-6, William-4, Gregory-2, and new little one due 11/1
Life Together
[URL=http://thejohnstonkids.blogspot.com]The Kids' Blog[/UR
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
LisaR
Forum All-Star
Joined: Feb 07 2005
Location: N/A
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2226
|
| Posted: April 02 2008 at 9:42am | IP Logged
|
|
|
yeah, IL has had that law (8 years old OR 80lbs!!) for quite awhile.
It works for us, because of the spacing of our kids and the generous size of the Suburban.
But what I notice in general is a "rounding down", so, for example, many of our friends let say, their 6 y/o's and up ride without a carseat, etc.
This makes me wonder: in states where it is 4 years old, do people "round down" from there too, and let their 3 y/o's without car seat?
on the plus side IL has NO regulations regarding homeschooling, nothing at all. no one knows who or where we are 
I'd rather obey strict carseat laws than strict homeschooling laws!
__________________
Lisa
dh Tim '92
Joseph 17
Paul 14
Thomas 11
Dominic 8
Maria Gianna 5
Isaac Vincent 9/21/10! and...
many little saints in heaven!
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
acystay
Forum Pro
Joined: May 31 2007
Location: California
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 99
|
| Posted: April 02 2008 at 10:18am | IP Logged
|
|
|
Let me just give you another thing to ponder about this law. While I find that it is important to maintain safety for all children, in some cases it can be difficult. I started thinking on this issue b/c at the time I had a Corolla w/ 3 carseats in the back. Yes, 3! Not one would move; they were in so tight. So, I started thinking what about if I had another child where would that 4th seat go? In CA, all children should be in the back in carseats unless, all those seats are taken by other carseats. So, there you go. Read further into the law and see what exceptions are given. Perhaps there is some kind of exception.
I also would say in this case since you truly desire to follow the law, but due to family situations it is difficult that God sees your desire. He knows that you are not intentionally breaking the law.
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
happymama
Forum Pro
Joined: Feb 05 2007
Location: N/A
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 410
|
| Posted: April 02 2008 at 11:00am | IP Logged
|
|
|
hey, Maryan - can you clarify for me something - are you saying that you can't fit in a booster seat for your oldest child? I can't picture what a Caravan looks like inside...
I'm sure that if you asked a "government official" they would say that you shouldn't have more children than you can safely transport in a car, OR if you do have more children, then they just shouldn't be driven in the car when there isn't room.
Car seats are a huge hassle, I know, and we grew up "not needing them", so it's a tough pill to swallow, BUT just for the sake of argument, I worked as a medic for 4 years and saw enough evidence during that short time to convince me that we are better safe than sorry with our children. After all, being in a moving car is the most dangerous place (statistically) for a human to be. "God's laws" also require as much prudence as we can fit into situations...
Our 5yo occasionally goes with dh on errands to the hardware store in his little old pickup truck - just a booster seat so the shoulder strap doesn't go across his neck - but being up front next to that windshield is certainly not ideal, so we don't do it often, even though it's legal.
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
Maryan
Forum All-Star
Joined: Jan 02 2007
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 3145
|
| Posted: April 02 2008 at 11:10am | IP Logged
|
|
|
I can't fit any kind of regular booster seat in the middle for JP. Before Philip was born I had just one that would prop JP up like you mentioned, but it won't fit in the middle in the back.
Suzanne figured out a way to muscle in them with the Radiantec seat. But I can't afford them.... well technically I have the money, but then we couldn't afford another car when this one breaks down... And our funds aren't up to buying a new car yet... yada, yada.
JP's lap belt doesn't have the shoulder thing... and I do understand that there are cautions with just the lap belt too, but in addition to my question above, I don't think it's just to pass a law that doesn't allow a grandfather exception if you have to spend over the worth of your car to fit it with carseats, etc. But that's a different discussion.
ETA: well, I guess the justice of the law is part of the discussion now that I think about it.
__________________
Maryan
Mom to 6 boys & 1 girl: JP('01), B ('03), M('05), L('06), Ph ('08), M ('10), James born 5/1/12
A Lee in the Woudes
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
Barbara C.
Forum All-Star
Joined: July 11 2007
Location: Illinois
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 882
|
| Posted: April 02 2008 at 11:35am | IP Logged
|
|
|
I know that the car seat laws can be rather inconvenient. We ourselves have had to trade in our car for a mini-van to prepare for our new baby, and our budget is always tight. We also live in Illinois with mandatory seats until age eight.
On the other hand, I really feel that it is for the best. Cars are designed for adult safety. Booster seats are necessary in order for should straps to fit across a child correctly without causing injury in the case of an accident. Due to the invention of air bags, children should never be in the front seat unless the air bag can be manually turned off. Otherwise, what would hit an adult in the chest, often bruising them, could hit a child in the face, causing severe damage.
I had a friend who was a former fire fighter; he mainly worked EMS calls. He said that in his time he saw some horrible accidents, but he was continually awed by how children who were properly strapped into properly installed car seats consistently came out alright. Our chances of getting in a horrible accident are probably slim, but I would much rather be safe then sorry. Of course, I am the sort that always has her car seat installation inspected and refuses to take a car seat out unless there is a really good reason.
__________________
Barbara
Mom to "spirited" dd(9), "spunky" dd (6), "sincere" dd (3), "sweet" dd (2), and baby girl #5 born 8/1/12!!
Box of Chocolates
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
Maryan
Forum All-Star
Joined: Jan 02 2007
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 3145
|
| Posted: April 02 2008 at 11:47am | IP Logged
|
|
|
I agree with all the feelings! And understand them!! Truly I've never broken a car seat law until now. And truly we rarely leave the house together, so it's not that often either!! I wouldn't say that I've followed all the chances of what could happen as much as I do like to be compliant when I can.
However, to feed, clothe, transport my family is expensive -- I don't think a seat belt law should restrict family size. KWIM?? I'm wondering how all these factors come into play with morality.
I did study from knowledgeable and faithful Catholics that there is a difference in culpability between some civil laws and natural laws. But it was a lecture class over 15 years ago; I can't find my notes AND I can't remember what teachings they referenced.
Susan I'm interested in your dh's thoughts. I'm looking for a good reference giving the principles for how to apply the morality of civil laws and not following them, etc.
I would ask my priest bil... but he's in Rome on a pilgrimage with high school students! But I could be patient and wait till he returns as well!
__________________
Maryan
Mom to 6 boys & 1 girl: JP('01), B ('03), M('05), L('06), Ph ('08), M ('10), James born 5/1/12
A Lee in the Woudes
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
LisaR
Forum All-Star
Joined: Feb 07 2005
Location: N/A
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2226
|
| Posted: April 02 2008 at 11:55am | IP Logged
|
|
|
I feel very uncomfortable when I see moms "double buckling" their kids, or a younger than 12 or very small child in the front seat but I've never said anything. And it is extra uncomfortable when I pass along a booster for my child to use (if he/she is getting a ride somewhere) and I did not think it through enough and I see that my kids will push the numbers over the edge and cause this to happen, but the other mom dosen;t seem to mind at all?
what would you do?
__________________
Lisa
dh Tim '92
Joseph 17
Paul 14
Thomas 11
Dominic 8
Maria Gianna 5
Isaac Vincent 9/21/10! and...
many little saints in heaven!
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
Maryan
Forum All-Star
Joined: Jan 02 2007
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 3145
|
| Posted: April 02 2008 at 12:14pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
acystay wrote:
| I also would say in this case since you truly desire to follow the law, but due to family situations it is difficult that God sees your desire. He knows that you are not intentionally breaking the law. |
|
|
I do think that you're right that moral theology works with principles and also particulars (as you brought up: safety in a car is the principle, but how in particular you apply that is the particular.) For example, last year when they didn't have this law was everyone endangering their children? I unfortunately have not found an exception... but I may not be looking in the right place! And I do think personal circumstances weigh into morality.
I guess I'm looking for a guide to making these decisions outside of personal feelings and opinions. What objective standard would be used. Common sense (and my moral formation) tells me that I'm not being sinful... but I've come across people who disagree and I can't explain my position well.
Reckless endangerment of a child is clearly sinful (and also happens to be against the law). But there seems to be some subjectivity in defining "reckess endangerment" IYKWIM or even just "endangerment"!! I don't think civil law is *the* defining factor of what endangerment is. Simply because our laws don't always follow natural law (to use an extreme example: mandating that hospitals give out contraceptive pills, etc.)
Sorry thoughts are all over the place, but I'm nursing, teaching and typing all at once!!
__________________
Maryan
Mom to 6 boys & 1 girl: JP('01), B ('03), M('05), L('06), Ph ('08), M ('10), James born 5/1/12
A Lee in the Woudes
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
SusanJ
Forum All-Star
Joined: May 25 2007
Location: New Jersey
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1347
|
| Posted: April 02 2008 at 12:21pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
I'll see if dh has time to weigh in this evening. He has a Ph.D in theology and his area is St. Thomas and he's done a lot of work in this area so I'm sure he has a long, considered opinion on this matter.
Susan
__________________
Mom to Joseph-8, Margaret-6, William-4, Gregory-2, and new little one due 11/1
Life Together
[URL=http://thejohnstonkids.blogspot.com]The Kids' Blog[/UR
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
Martha
Forum All-Star
Joined: Aug 25 2005
Location: N/A
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2291
|
| Posted: April 02 2008 at 12:56pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
okay several thought to share here.
#1 when we had a dodge caravan and another baby on the way, dh went to the salvage yard and purchased a 3-seat bench to replace the 2 seat bench in the middle. It gave us more room and they could still get to the rear bench. Best $50 we ever spent at the time. It sounds trashy, but it was actually very clean and in better condition than the rest of the seats that were original to the van, which we babied because it was an only vehicle for a long time and we were very aware of how dependent we were on it.
#2 I think past age 5 or 6, the child seat laws are getting ridiculous. If that seat isn't safe for my 8 -12 yr old, then it isn't safe for a LOT of adults either. Like pregnant women and the elderly and short, skinny people. Bottom line, they should make the stupid vehicle safer. I've always thought they should do away with the silly shoulder harness entirely and get 3 or 5 point systems like they have in race cars, and car seats. It's not the carseat that makes the passenger safer, it's the harness system in the carseat.
#3 When they base it on height or weight they are getting on murky ground. I mean really who can argue it? Cop: "He looks below the weight limit" Mom: "Do you have a scale handy?" Are they going to do height and weight check points now? And if so, what about a law that says you can't drive with your seat less than 12 inches away from the stering wheel? (Because that's the safest distance) Or pregnant women and little old ladies can't drive vehicles with airbags? (Anyone here think it's a good idea for those ladies to be basicly punched in the chest/diaphram area? They might be better off getting a knock on the noggin from hitting their forehead on the stering wheel!
All that aside, I do keep on my kids under 6 in carseats. (which is all that my state requires and I'm fine with, so it works out for us)
Also, I agree with a previous poster that you should double check the laws in your state for exceptions.
For example, in my state if you are in a big enough vehicle they once they turn 4, you don't have to have a carseat. That's why none of the preschool type daycares or schools have to use them. The reasoning is that the high backed seats act like a buffer and a lapbelt is deemed enough. (I disagree, I think the 3 or 5 pt harness is the best thing, regardless of vehicle but automaker lobbies are never going to let that get past and they sure as heck don't care what I think.  )
__________________
Martha
mama to 7 boys & 4 girls
Yes, they're all ours!
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
Martha
Forum All-Star
Joined: Aug 25 2005
Location: N/A
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2291
|
| Posted: April 02 2008 at 1:09pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
oh I forgot to add and had to search for it anyways
these travel vests might be a great alternative
they are very popular with people who travel a lot
you can get them in different sizes
we had one way back in the day that we borrowed from a friend and had no problems with it
in fact, I think it was tighter and more secure than the carseats that it takes a double jointed plastic super human to install properly and then gets bumped loose in no time.
http://www.amazon.com/Safe-Traffic-System-Inc-Travel/dp/B000 MGWEII
http://www.travelingwithkids.com/proddetail.php?prod=366&cat =553
the AAP recommends them too
http://www.aap.org/family/carseatguide.htm
"Travel vests—these can be worn by children between 20 and 168 pounds and can be an alternative to traditional forward-facing seats. They are also useful for when a vehicle has lap-only seat belts in the rear."
__________________
Martha
mama to 7 boys & 4 girls
Yes, they're all ours!
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
Maryan
Forum All-Star
Joined: Jan 02 2007
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 3145
|
| Posted: April 02 2008 at 1:14pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
Hey Martha great ideas! I had forgotten about those travel vests too! My dh was wondering about replacing the two seater with a three seater as well. I'll have to look into that!
__________________
Maryan
Mom to 6 boys & 1 girl: JP('01), B ('03), M('05), L('06), Ph ('08), M ('10), James born 5/1/12
A Lee in the Woudes
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
Lisbet
Forum All-Star
Joined: Feb 07 2006
Location: Michigan
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2706
|
| Posted: April 02 2008 at 1:19pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
My oldest son was taller/heavier than me just before he turned 11 - he sat in the front seat. My daughter just turned 11 and is taller than me, she sits in the front seat. Sometimes we double buckle, not optimal of course, but we've done it.
__________________
Lisa, wife to Tony,
Mama to:
Nick, 17
Abby, 15
Gabe, 13
Isaac, 11
Mary, 10
Sam, 9
Henry, 7
Molly, 6
Mark, 5
Greta, 3
Cecilia born 10.29.10
Josephine born 6.11.12
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
LisaR
Forum All-Star
Joined: Feb 07 2005
Location: N/A
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2226
|
| Posted: April 02 2008 at 1:27pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
Lisbet wrote:
| My oldest son was taller/heavier than me just before he turned 11 - he sat in the front seat. My daughter just turned 11 and is taller than me, she sits in the front seat. Sometimes we double buckle, not optimal of course, but we've done it. |
|
|
I have a friend who is petite and her 10 y/o on up are bigger than her! I know she told me that she was told to disable the air bag for the front driver seat because of her size? (and short arms length to the steering wheel/bag??)
my uncomfortableness stems from how awful I would feel if a family got into an accident and my children were "ok" because I had "insisted" on them being in carseats, but then her children were injured/killed because I caused them to double buckle/reconfigure??
__________________
Lisa
dh Tim '92
Joseph 17
Paul 14
Thomas 11
Dominic 8
Maria Gianna 5
Isaac Vincent 9/21/10! and...
many little saints in heaven!
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
JodieLyn
Forum Moderator
Joined: Sept 06 2006
Location: Oregon
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 12234
|
| Posted: April 02 2008 at 2:59pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
My children on the flip side.. are pretty tiny. My 11 yr old still uses a booster seat for out of town travel (small town, short distances, low speeds)
I'm basically at the point that I pretty much ignore the speifics of the law.. because my personal preference is at least equal to what they mandate... more so usually (hence an 11 yr old in a booster) but also understand that my 11 yr old is small enough that she does not properly fit in the seat without it yet (for short distance I trust that she can maintain proper posture for the seatbelt to fit correctly) and she's within any limits on the booster seat.
I also talk with my children about just what it is we're doing.. I point out the hard sternum and hips that the belts can hold on and that if the belts are on softer parts.. their tummy or their neck that the belt itself will hurt them inside.
It helps them understand where the belts go and why and why the seats help.. and I get very little argument about it at all.
I know a lot of people are reluctant to put their older child back into a booster because they'd been telling the child for so long things like "as soon as you are ______ you won't have to use one" And will have a fight on their hands to get the child back into one.
I've always told my kids they'd be in boosters until they're 16 Several of them are just tiny.. and none of them are above average in height or weight.
At the time I was able to wedge 5 carseats into the mini-van we had... but we moved into a larger vehicle in order to have enough seats for the kids.. and at the ages of my kids I had to have a vehicle big enough to take all of them with me anywhere I went.. with dh gone for weeks at a time.. there just was no choice in anything else. Not like I had a child old enough to drive another vehicle or even one old enough to leave at home alone for a bit.
The boosters (like the graco turbo booster) are fairly cheap for the protection they give so we haven't found it to be that big a deal to keep the older kids in boosters.. the expensive seats for the younger ones are harder but even more non-negotiable.
But it seems like the car manufacturer's should be being held more accountable.. I mean.. come on.. if the mini-van's are obviously designed with families in mind.. then shouldn't they be the ones required to make them safe for kids? not the parents?
__________________
Jodie, wife to Dave
G-18, B-17, G-15, G-14, B-13, B-11, G-9, B-7, B-5, B-4
All men who have turned out worth anything have had the chief hand in their own education.
-Sir Walter Scott
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
SusanJ
Forum All-Star
Joined: May 25 2007
Location: New Jersey
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1347
|
| Posted: April 02 2008 at 9:30pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
Susan's husband here. I'll try to distinguish between Church teaching and my application here, but I think there are some pretty straightforward principles. Let me warn you ahead of time: I'll start with a strong statement, but then offer some major caveats.
St. Thomas's treatise on law is Ia-IIae, qq. 90-97. You can read it here: http://www.newadvent.org/summa/2.htm. The most directly important article is q. 96, a. 4, "Whether human law binds a man in his conscience." Here Thomas answers exactly the question being asked on the forum.
His answer comes down to this: being part of a human community is part of natural law; human communities being ruled by laws is part of the natural law; therefore human laws passed by legitimately established authority are part of natural law, and are as binding as any other part of natural law.
To put it differently, "render to Caesar what is Caesar" does not mean, "Oh, God doesn't care about that stuff." Rather, it means God himself (Jesus) commands you to obey the civil authorities.
Paul says the same thing: "Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God. Therefore he who resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment" (Rom 13:1-2). For the record, I am not alone in applying this verse to the issue at stake. Read the section on human law in the Catechism, 1897-1904, online at http://www.vatican.va/archive/catechism/p3s1c2a2.htm#I. The Catechism repeats this verse as the head of the "In Brief" section. Then it adds this, from Gaudium et Spes: "The political community and public authority are based on human nature and therefore . . . belong to an order established by God" (CCC 1920).
In short, I think the Church's teaching is very clear, both in St. Thomas and in the Catechism: civil law is part of the natural law, and is therefore binding in conscience. To break a human law is to sin against God.
HOWEVER, both St. Thomas and the Catechism are quite careful to delimit what constitutes a true law. There are four conditions: (a) a legitimate law-maker, (b) reasonability, (c) for the common good, (d) promulgated. (A) is, in my opinion, pretty straightforward: if Jesus and Paul considered Caesar to be a legitimate law-maker, then our democratically elected government is unquestionably legitimate. I really don't think there's room for argument on this.
(D), "promulgated," is interesting. If you really can't decipher what the law is, the law does not exist. This is the only place, in my opinion, there could be wiggle-room on the speed limit: if you really want to argue that lack of enforcement means you can't tell whether that "55" sign really means 55. I don't buy this argument, but you can.
(B), "reasonable," is not as slippery as it sounds. Tie goes to the authority here. That is, you don't get to second-guess every law, and decide whether you think you like it. If this were the case, there would be no laws at all, just suggestions, and the teachings of St. Thomas, St. Paul, and the Catechism would be total nonsense. You don't get to question every law. Moreover, "reasonable" mostly means that it is intelligible, not that you like it.
HOWEVER . . . there are limit cases. If the law is truly incoherent, it is not a true law. I'll leave that call to all of you on this one, but it seems arguable: how can the state require safety laws that are impossible for an ordinary family to follow?
But in my opinion, (c), "for the common good," is the real way out here. There are two aspects here, "common," and "good." "Good" you can all understand. A law that harms decent people rather than helping them is not "for the good" and therefore not a law. If you believe that hospital birth is truly less safe than homebirth, for example, you might argue that laws against homebirth are not true laws because they require women to take unnecessary risks in fulfilling their basic duties. This "law" would not be "for the good."
But the bigger question is what "common" means. There are two schools on this. One school reads "common" to mean "pertaining to everyone." So, for example, car safety is an obligation "common" to all parents, and thus a car-safety law would be for the "common" good.
But the more traditional meaning of that term equates "common" with "public." In this reading, a bag of apples is not a "common" good because you eat one apple, I eat another: we're not actually partaking of the same good. Truth, however, is a "common" good, because when we both know, we both participate in the *same* good.
On this reading, which is more traditional, I'd say there's a radical difference between, say, traffic safety laws (speed limits, stoplights, drunk driving, etc.) and laws about seatbelts and car seats, because one involves public safety, and the other involves only private safety. Making the roads themselves safe by preventing speeding is promoting a "common" good, a good that we all share in. But nanny-state laws about wearing your seatbelt are just promoting individual, private goods, that we all happen to have: like a bag of apples. Your seatbelt safety is similar to mine, but they aren't the same safety. It's not a "common" good.
I'd be inclined to argue that many nanny-state laws fail this criterion: they have nothing to do with truly "common" goods, and therefore are not true laws, and do not oblige in conscience. They may be good recommendations (I happen to think wearing a seatbelt is a darned good idea) but they don't have the same authority, don't oblige in the same way, because they don't fit the definition of "law" given by St. Thomas and the Catechism. I'd be inclined to say that carseats are a darned good idea, but they are not a proper law and do not oblige in conscience. But people could debate this, based on their reading of "common."
(The text to read is Ia-IIae q. 90, a. 2 -- but it's pretty hard going. I think what he's saying is that law has to do with communities, and individuals only as parts of the community. Therefore the good it secures is a communal good, not just the goods of individuals. But these are big concepts.)
In conclusion, let me just reiterate: St. Thomas and the Catechism are very clear that laws oblige in conscience. If the law truly fits the definition -- if it is intelligible, from a legitimate authority, promulgated, and for the common good -- it is a sin to break the law. I think what's most important in our parsing of these things is to make sure we don't drown out this very clear teaching. If your understanding of law leaves no way that it can oblige your conscience, your understanding of law is out of step with Catholic teaching. True laws are not recommendations, they are commandments, with the full authority of the natural law behind them.
With that, I'll leave you to your consciences!
__________________
Mom to Joseph-8, Margaret-6, William-4, Gregory-2, and new little one due 11/1
Life Together
[URL=http://thejohnstonkids.blogspot.com]The Kids' Blog[/UR
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
|
|
4Real Forums : Domestic Church
Topic: Civil vs. Natural law
